Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just looked at AASHTO's Interstate Routes Binder and NCDOT has also submitted I-36 to the FHWA. I-89 for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor was also submitted to the FHWA.
Not sure why they didn't just go with I-42. Seems to make the most sense.
I suppose they figured it would cause driver confusion since NC-42 is close by, which might also be the reason NCDOT canned the I-50 proposal, since NC-50 was also close by. That's my best guess, anyway. Still, I-36 was a lousy choice and I highly doubt AASHTO will approve it anyway on grounds that it violates the numbering grid. If NCDOT didn't want to use I-42 or I-50, they could at least use I-46 since it would fit the numbering grid.
Interstate 89 is already in use from Bow, New Hampshire, to the Canadian border.
I am content with Interstate 36.
NCDOT's argument for I-89 is that it's far enough away from the existing I-89 that there would be no driver confusion and the fact that all of the odd numbered routes are already taken, which means any future 2-digit interstate would have a duplicate number. Personally, I think it ought to be an even number since over half of the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor is east-west more than it is north-south. I-40 runs north-south from Raleigh to Wilmington, but the rest of the route from Raleigh to Barstow, CA is east-west, whereas it's the opposite with (probable future) I-89. I think AASHTO will approve I-89. I-36 might be a different story, but stranger things have happened.
If this thing ever gets built, it better be a toll road. IMO, this is a huge waste of money when Interstate quality roads are not even well funded in the major metro areas.
If this thing ever gets built, it better be a toll road. IMO, this is a huge waste of money when Interstate quality roads are not even well funded in the major metro areas.
There are plenty of cars that travel this corridor, especially in the summer. Interstates are a system to get FROM Metro to Metro or regional roads....not to alleviate traffic WITHIN a Metro.
If there are traffic issues in your metro, you should not be looking for the state and feds to build everything...city's can own roads too. Contact your local politician and ask to be taxed locally because you don't like the traffic WITHIN your community.
NCDOT's argument for I-89 is that it's far enough away from the existing I-89 that there would be no driver confusion and the fact that all of the odd numbered routes are already taken, which means any future 2-digit interstate would have a duplicate number. Personally, I think it ought to be an even number since over half of the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor is east-west more than it is north-south. I-40 runs north-south from Raleigh to Wilmington, but the rest of the route from Raleigh to Barstow, CA is east-west, whereas it's the opposite with (probable future) I-89. I think AASHTO will approve I-89. I-36 might be a different story, but stranger things have happened.
I'm not an expert on road numberings, but the bolded statement seems to be a bit off.
From this wiki page, it has a list of all current interstates.
11,13,21,23,31,33,47,51,53,61,63,67 aren't currently in place. Have all these numbers been proposed already? Seems like there should be another way to process these interstates so that there aren't any duplicates.
11,13,21,23,31,33,47,51,53,61,63,67 aren't currently in place. Have all these numbers been proposed already? Seems like there should be another way to process these interstates so that there aren't any duplicates.
Odd numbered interstates start from the lowest number on the west coast and increase to the highest number on the east coast. (Ex. I-5 on the west coast and I-95 on the east coast). I-11 couldn't be used anyway since it's being planned for an Interstate route from Phoenix AZ to Las Vegas NV and was written into law by Congress. The other numbers you listed that are not being used are too far off the numbering grid for a NC-VA interstate. The only way any of those numbers would get approved is if one of them was specifically written into law by Congress (like I-99 in central Pennsylvania). Since Congressional law supersedes AASHTO and the FHWA, they wouldn't have no choice but to approve the number. I-89 doesn't fit the numbering grid perfectly (it's nearly impossible for anything to fit the grid perfectly nowdays) but it comes pretty close.
I just noticed on NCDOT's AASHTO application for I-36, they said that they would request sections of US-70 to be added to the Interstate system as it's being upgraded, so if AASHTO approves Future I-36 later this month, I think it's very likely NCDOT will send another application to AASHTO at their next meeting in the fall to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and Goldsboro Bypasses, since they're the only sections of US-70 that currently meets Interstate standards. If that happens, Goldsboro and Clayton will be the first towns to have I-36 signed probably sometime early next year, as long as NCDOT requests those additions this fall. That's my guess, anyway.
Wouldn't the section going through New Bern also meet Interstate Standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
